SPEECH 


HON.  JOHN  C.  TEN  EYCK, 

OF  NEW  JERSEY. 

- o - 

Delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate,  April  2,  1860. 

— - o - — 


The  resolutions  of  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi, 
relative  to  State  rights,  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  the  States,  the  right  of  citizens  of  the  several 
States  in  the  Territories  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
protect  those  rights  ;  the  power  of  the  Terri¬ 
torial  Legislatures  over  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  the  duty  of  the  several  States  to  observe 
and  respect  the  fugitive  slave  law,  &c.,  being 
under  consideration — 

Mr.  TEN  EYCK  said : 

Mr.  President  :  So  much  has  been  said  du¬ 
ring  the  present  session,  in  both  houses  of  Con- 
ress,  about  the  infidelity  of  several  of  the 
tates  of  this  Union  to  their  constitutional  du¬ 
ties  and  obligations,  that  I  feel  constrained  to 
make  a  few  remarks  in  reference  to  the  State 
which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent. 
In  doing  so,  however,  I  desire  it  to  be  distinctly 
understood,  that  I  have  no  accusations,  “rail¬ 
ing  ”  or  otherwise,  to  bring,  and  no  excuses  or 
apologies  to  make,  except,  perhaps,  for  the  too 
frequent  allusions  I  may  be  called  upon  to  make 
respecting  my  native  State,  during  the  course  of 
these  remarks. 

Mr.  President,  the  State  of  New  Jersey  has 
always  been  devoted  to  the  Union — has  always 
been  true  and  loyal  the  Constitution — the  Con¬ 
stitution  as  understood  by  its  framers  and  the 
statesmen  of  that  day,  including  the  earlier 
Presidents,  and  as  subsequently  interpreted  and 
expounded  by  a  Marshall  and  a  Story,  by  a 
Webster  and  a  Clay. 

It  was,  sir,  a  suggestion  of  hers  that  led  to 
the  meeting  of  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia, 
in  1787,  which  framed  the  Constitution. 

When  the  State  of  Virginia,  by  her  House  of 
Delegates,  recommended  the  meeting  of  a  Con' 


vention  at  Annapolis,  ir^  1786,  it  was  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  regulating  that  trade  and  com¬ 
merce  which,  through  the  strifes,  rivalries,  and 
contentions,  of  the  several  States  under  the 
Confederation,  had  become  well  nigh  ruined  and 
destroyed. 

When  this  Convention  met,  owing  to  the 
small  number  in  attendance,  there  being  com¬ 
missioners  from  only  five  States  present,  viz  : 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela¬ 
ware,  and  Virginia,  the  Convention  proceeded 
to  the  transaction  of  no  business  other  than  to 
prepare  a  report  to  the  States  sending  them,  and 
to  Congress,  in  which  they  say  :  “  The  State  of 
New  Jersey  had  enlarged  the  object  of  their 
appointment,  empowering  their  commissioners 
to  consider  how  far  an  uniform  system  in  their 
commercial  regulations,  and  other  important 
matters ,  might  he  necessary  to  the  common  in¬ 
terest  and  permanent  harmony  of  the  several 
States,  and  to  report  such  an  act  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  as,  when  ratified  by  them,  would  enable 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  effect¬ 
ually  to  provide  for  the  exigencies  %of  the 
Union.”  k 

The  report  further  states,  that  the  “  commis¬ 
sioners  submit  an  opinion,  that  the  idea  of  ex¬ 
tending  the  powers  of  their  deputies  to  other 
objects  than  those  of  commerce,  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  was  an 
improvement  on  the  original  plan ,  and  will  de¬ 
serve  to  he  incorporated  into  that  of  a  future 
Convention 

In  consequence  of  this,  and  the  recommend¬ 
ation  of  Congress  thereon,  the  Convention  met 
at  Philadelphia  in  May,  1787,  and,  on  the  17th 
of  September  following,  that  great  work  was 
accomplished.  And  yet  I  believe,  sir,  that 


0 


Virginia  has  received  nearly  if  not  all  the 
credit  of  this.  It  has  been  with  her  as  with 
the  great  Alfred ;  on  account  of  her  having 
done  much,  (and  she  has  done  much,)  it  has 
been  usual  to  attribute  everything  to  her.  Why, 
sir,  three  years  before  this,  New  York,  by  a 
series  of  able  resolutions  in  her  State  Legisla¬ 
ture,  had  called  public  attention  to  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  adopting  a  more  efficient  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  than  then  existed.  But,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  institute  compar¬ 
isons  between  the  different  States  of  this 
Union,  much  less  to  speak  in  terms  of  dis¬ 
paragement  of  any  one  of  them.  I  regard  the 
fame  of  each  as  constituting  the  glory  of  the 
whole  ;  and  any  discredit  cast  upon  one,  sullies, 
to  a  certain  extent,  the  common  lustre  of  them 
all. 

New  Jersey,  sir,  was  one  of  the  three  first 
States  that  adopted  the  Constitution  after  it 
was  framed,  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  only 
preceding  her  by  a  few  days  ;  and  she  did  it  in 
the  Convention  of  her  people  called  for  that 
purpose,  promptly,  cordially,  and  unanimously, 
without  a  dissenting  voice.  She  was  the  very 
first  to  ratify  the  amendments  to  that  instru¬ 
ment  ;  and,  sir,  she  will  be  the  last  to  abandon 
it.  Should  this  wisi&t  frame  of  government 
ever  devised  by  human  skill,  ability,  genius, 
and  philosophy,  fall  by  violence,  it  will  be  no 
hand  of  hers  that  strikes  the  accursed  blow.  I 
say  the  blow  accursed,  for  under  no  circum¬ 
stances  can  I  regard  the  destruction  of  this 
Union  as  excusable,  much  less  as  justifiable; 
for  with  it  will  perish  the  hope  and  the  cause 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty  on  this  continent ; 
and,  instead  of  being  an  empire,  grand,  power¬ 
ful,  and  magnificent,  we  will  become  a  number 
of  dissevered  States,  enfeebled,  discordant,  and 
belligerent,  whose  destiny  may  be  read  in  the 
history  of  those  rival  States  and  Governments 
in  the  countries  south  of  us,  which  have  en¬ 
dured  for  a  time,  and  then  expired  ;  flashing 
up  for  a  period,  and  then  falling  back  into  dark¬ 
ness  and  gloom  forever. 

The  Constitution  is  a  sacred  covenant  en¬ 
tered  into  by  our  fathers  “  to  form  a  more  per¬ 
fect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the 
M^fngs  of  liberty  to  themselves  and  their 
posterity ;  ”  and  it  must  be  maintained  and 
kept  in  its  letter  and  its  spirit,  in  each  and 
every  particular — aye,  even  as  regards  that 
« peculiar  institution  ”  which  is  now  making 
go  much  trouble  in  the  world.  Should  attempts 
be  made  to  interfere  with  this,  where  it  exists 
in  the  several  States,  under  their  laws,  either 
by  wild  fanatics,  whose  brains  may  have  been 
roasted  by  a  bare-headed  exposure  to  the  suns 
of  Kansas,  or  in  the  shape  of  servile  insurrec¬ 
tions  within,  or  by  assaults  and  violence  from 
without,  the  people  of  my  State,  if  need  be,  will 
stand  by  their  brethren  of  the  South,  side  by 
side,  and  shoulder  to  shoulder,  as  our  fathers  did 


of  old,  in  the  times  of  fiery  trial,  when  their 
blood  ran  together  on  the  same  battle  plain — 
when  they  put  forth  a  common  shout  for  victo¬ 
ries  achieved,  and  mingled  in  a  common  sor¬ 
row  at  defeats  sustained. 

But  the  question  is  not  whether  slavery  or 
involuntary  servitude  shall  be  abolished  in  the 
States  where  it  exists  by  law,  against  the  wishes 
of  the  people  of  those  States— no  one  seriously 
pretends  thi3,  save  an  inconsiderable  few,  who 
hate  the  Union  anyhow — but  whether  it  shall  be 
carried  into  the  Territories  belonging  to  the 
United  States. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  these  broad 
public  domains  are  to  be  the  home  of  free 
labor,  with  its  thrift  and  enterprise  ;  its  trades 
and  handicrafts;  its  industry  and  progress ;  its 
busy  marts  and  commerce  ;  its  shops,  its  mills, 
and  factories ;  its  schools,  its  colleges,  and 
churches ;  its  fields  of  luxuriant  grasses  ;  its 
flocks  and  lowing  herds ;  its  golden  harvests, 
resounding  with  its  happy  reapers’  song  ;  or 
whether  they  are  to  be  the  home  of  slavery, 
with  its  wealthy  few,  its  landless  masses ;  its 
worn-out,  impoverished  soils;  its  waste  and  di¬ 
lapidation  ;  its  negro  huts  and  u  quarters ;”  and, 
it  may  be,  its  sigh  of  sorrow,  and  its  cry  of  pain. 

The  practical  question,  in  fact,  is,  whether* 
these  Territories  are  to  remain  open  to  all  the 
free  white  citizens  of  this  Union,  native  or 
adopted,  for  homes  and  firesides  for  themselves, 
their  children,  and  descendants ;  or  whether  they 
are  to  be  closed  up,  and  forever  barred  against 
them,  by  the  introduction  of  African  slavery. 
For,  although  I  do  not  consider  these  two  differ¬ 
ent  systems  of  labor  so  incompatible  as  that  of 
necessity  they  must  impinge,  the  one  upon  the 
other,  so  that  they  cannot  continue  to  exist  in 
different  sections  of  this  Union,  as*  they  have 
existed  for  the  last  half  century  or  more,  still 
it  is  certain  that  they  cannot  both  exist  and 
flourish  together  in  the  same  immediate  dis¬ 
trict,  in  the  same  place,  on  the  same  plantation, 
in  the  same  field,  or  in  the  same  workshop.  I 
say  African  slavery,  for  I  understand  it  to  be 
conceded,  by  at  least  a  portion  of  the  friends  of 
this  system,  that,  unless  a  further  supply  of  this 
kind  of  labor  can  be  obtained  from  other  sources 
than  from  the  States  themselves,  there  is  now, 
practically,  an  end  to  the  matter,  so  far  as  the 
Territories  are  concerned. 

Mr.  President,  slavery,  where  it  exists  in  the 
several  States,  under  their  laws,  must  not  be 
interfered  with  ;  but  when  it  is  attempted  to 
introduce  it  into  Territories  which,  since  the 
morning  of  creation,  have  been  as  free  as  the 
wild  deer  bounding  over  their  prairies,  it  must 
be  calmly,  constitutionally,  yet  firmly  and  for¬ 
ever,  resisted.  Why? 

In  a  country  so  extensive  as  ours,  running 
through  so  many  degrees  of  latitude,  embracing 
such  a  variety  of  climate,  and  furnishing  every 
kind  and  species  of  production — the  South 
having  its  sugar,  cotton,  and  tobacco ;  the  Mid¬ 
dle  and  Western  States,  their  agriculture,  mines, 


3 


£ 

and  manufactories ;  the  East,  also  its  manufacto¬ 
ries,  fisheries,  and  commerce — there  must,  of  ne¬ 
cessity,  be  a  great  diversity  of  pursuits  and  inter¬ 
ests  ;  and  although,  as  legislators,  we  should  have 
regard  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  whole :  still, 
we  are  not  to  be  altogether  unmindful  of  home 
and  its  concerns.  By  the  operation  of  the  three- 
fifths  rule,  as  applied  to  the  right  of  representa¬ 
tion  in  Congress,  one  portion  of  this  Union  now 
enjoys  a  larger  representation  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  than  they  would  otherwise  be 
entitled  to.  We  will  stand  by  the  bargain,  as 
made  by  our  fathers.  It  was  a  hard  one,  but 
it  wa3  made  upon  a  compromise  ;  we  will  main¬ 
tain  it,  as  far  as  it  extends.  But,  I  say  it  in 
kindness,  we  will  oppose  its  further  extension 
and  increase,  as  being  injurious  and  unjust  to  us. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  said  that  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  its  own  force  and  vigor  carries  slavery 
into  all  the  Territories  which  have  been  ac¬ 
quired  since  the  period  of  its  adoption.  If  this 
be  so,  then  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter.  But 
does  it  do  so  ?  It  nowhere  does  so  by  express 
letter.  It  does  not  do  so  by  necessary  impli¬ 
cation.  It  was  not  the  understanding  of  its 
framers,  or  meant  and  intended  at  the  time  that 
it  should  do  so.  In  order  properly  to  under¬ 
stand  this,  we  must  cast  our  minds  back  to 
the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution. 
We  had  just  emerged  from  a  struggle  for  ex-! 
istence,  followed  by  a  feeble  Confederacy  5  the 
idea  of  acquiring  new  territory  never  entered 
into  the  head  of  any  one  at  that  time ;  the 
public  sentiment  was  existence ,  not  extension. 
The  settled  portion  of  the  States  constituted 
only  a  small  strip  on  the  Atlantic  ocean,  and 
all  between  that  and  the  Mississippi  river  was 
a  vast  wilderness,  which  it  was  supposed  ages 
would  require  to  fill  up  and  people.  That  was 
not,  like* ours,  a  day  of  rapid  progress.  The 
use  of  steam,  as  applicable  to  motive  power 
on  land  and  water,  had  not  then  been  discov¬ 
ered.  The  magnetic  telegraph  had  not  sent 
its  fiery  sparks  to  every  corner  of  the  land. 
Indeed,  so  little  were  the  Territories  lying  act¬ 
ually  within  the  limits  of  the  Union  then  re¬ 
garded,  that  no  allusion  to  them  whatever  was 
made  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  framed 
only  ten  years  before.  And  we  all  know  that 
when  the  Territory  of  Orleans  was  acquired 
by  purchase  from  France,  in  1803,  Mr.  Jeffer¬ 
son,  who  was  the  chief  negotiator  of  the  treaty, 
was  of  opinion  that  there  was  no  constitutional 
provision  authorizing  it,  and  recommended  his 
friends  in  Congress  to  say  as  little  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  its  constitutionality  as  possible,  stating 
that  the  difficulty  could  be  cured  by  an  amend¬ 
ment  to  the  Constitution.  Sir,  the  Constitution 
was  not  framed  with  a  view  to  any  such  pur¬ 
pose. 

I  have  thought  that  a  strange  doctrine  ad¬ 
vanced  in  a  recent  celebrated  decision,  which 
holds,  that  that  provision  of  the  Constitution 
which  gives  the  power  to  Congress  11  to  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting 


the  territory  of  the  United  States,”  does  not 
apply  to  such  territory  as  has  been  acquired 
since  the  Constitution  was  framed ;  and  yet 
that  it  carries  slavery  into  those  newly-acquired 
Territories,  without  one  word  being  contained, 
therein  referring  to  such  territory,  or  the  ac¬ 
quisition  of  any  such  having  been  even  contem¬ 
plated  at  the  time. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  intend,  at  this  time,  to 
enter  into  a  legal  argument  on  this  subject. 
Certain  it  is,  that  at  that  day  the  extension  of 
slavery  was  not  desired  or  contemplated.  It 
was  regarded  on  all  sides  as  an  evil — an  evil 
that  had  in  part  been  forced  upon  the  colonies 
by  the  British  Crown,  against  the  wishes  of 
some  of  them,  the  King  sometimes  vetoing  the 
acts  of  the  Colonial  Legislatures  intended  to 
prohibit  it.  The  fathers  of  the  Republic  so 
regarded  it — Southern  as  well  as  Northern 
statesmen  —  the  Washingtons,  the  Jeffersons, 
the  Madisons,  and  the  Monroes,  as  well  as  the 
Adams’s,  the  Danes,  and  their  compeers.  To 
cite  no  others,  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  Notes  on 
Virginia,  writing  on  this  subject,  says: 

u  I  tremble  for  my  country  when  I  reflect  that  God  is  just ; 
that  His  justice  cannot  sleep  forever  ;  that,  considering  num¬ 
bers,  nature,  and  natural  means  only,  a  revolution  of  the 
wheel  of  fortune,  an  exchange  of  situation,  is  among  possible 
events  ;  that  it  may  become  probable  by  supernatual  inter¬ 
ference  !  The  Almighty  has  no  attribute  which  can  take  side 
with  us  in  such  a  contest.” 

On  another  occasion  he  said  : 

“  The  abolition  of  domestic  slavery  is  the  great  object  of 
desire  in  these  colonies,  where  it  was  unhappily  introduced 
in  their  infant  state.  But  previous  to  the  enfranchisement 
of  the  slaves,  it  is  necessary  to  exclude  further  importations 
from  Africa.  Yet  our  repeated  attempts  to  effect  this  by 
prohibitions,  and  by  imposing  duties  which  might  amount 
to  prohibition,  have  been  hitherto  defeated  by  h;s  Majesty’s 
negative.” 

Listen  to  what  the  Father  of  his  Country 
thought.  In  his  celebrated  letter  to  General 
Lafayette,  General  Washington  said  : 

“  I  agree  with  you  cordially  in  your  views  in  regard  to 
negro  slavery.  I  have  long  considered  it  a  most  serious 
evil,  both  socially  and  politically,  and  I  should  rejoice  in  any 
feasible  scheme  to  rid  our  States  of  such  a  burden.  The 
Cor«|ss  of  1787  adopted  an  ordinance  which  prohibits  the 
exi^Rce  of  involuntary  servitude  in  our  Northwestern  Ter- 
ritorFforever.  I  consider  it  a  wise  measure.  It  met  with  the 
approval  and  assent  of  nearly  every  member  from  the  States 
more  immediately  interested  in  slave  labor.  The  prevailing 
opinion  in  Virginia  is  against  the  spread  of  slavery  in  cmr 
new  Territories,  and  I  trust  we  shall  have  a  Confederacy  ok 
free  States.” 

How  explicit  and  emphatic  ! 

And  yet,  it  is  now  said  Washington  was  in 
error  5  that  he  did  not  understand  tbe  nature  of 
this  institution  ;  that  if  he  had  lived  in  this  our 
day  he  would  have  entertained  different  views 
and  advanced  different  opinions  in  relation  to 
it.  Sir,  this  falls  strangely  on  our  ears.  The 
Father  of  his  Country  has  left  the  footprints  of 
his  heroism  on  our  soil,  and  his  doctrines  and 
his  teachings  have  sunk  deep  into  our  hearts. 
Others  may  do  as  they  choose ;  even  they  who 
have  more  particularly  the  custody  of  his  fame, 
and  even  his  sacred  bones  in  their  keeping ; 
but  as  for  us,  we  will  never  banish  from  our 
hearts  this  object  of  our  veneration  and  affec¬ 
tion. 


4 


b 


Sir,  slavery  was  then  regarded  as  an  evil. 
Uniform  testimony  was  borne  to  that;  but  it 
was  an  evil  that  had  become  so  interwoven 
with  our  political  and  social  systems,  that  it 
could  not  be  eradicated  at  once ;  it  could  not  be 
destroyed  by  violence,  without  leaving  the  body 
politic  mangled  and  bleeding.  It  was  a  sort 
of  cancerous  malady,  that  could  not  be  torn  out 
by  the  roots,  but  had.  to  be  left  to  the  several 
States  within  whose  borders  it  existed — and  it 
existed  in  almost  all  of  them — to  be  managed 
and  regulated  by  themselves,  at  their  own  time 
and  in  their  own  way,  either  by  the  use  of  the 
knife,  lopping  it  off  at  once,  or  by  the  aid  of 
emollients,  by  which,  in  time,  it  might  be  cured 
and  dissipated.  We  had  the  institution  at  that 
time  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey;  and  it  was  not 
until  our  act  of  1820,  by  which  it  was  provided 
that  all  children  born  of  slaves  subsequent  to 
the  year  1804  should  be  held  as  servants — 
females  until  they  attained  the  age  of  twenty- 
one,  and  males  until  they  arrived  to  the  age  of 
twenty-five — that  we  became,  in  a  measure,  re¬ 
lieved  of  this  system.  In  1850,  at  the  time  of 
the  last  general  census,  there  were  about  three 
hundred  and  thirty  slaves  in  the  State ;  and  at 
this  day  I  suppose  there  are  not  more  than  a 
score ;  some  still  existing,  born  prior  to  the  act 
of  1804,  which  did  not  apply  to  them,  and  who 
are  now  too  old  to  be  manumitted  by  our  gen¬ 
eral  acts  of  manumission.  *But  death  is  fast 
manumitting  them  all ;  and,  in  the  course  of  a 
few  years,  there  will  not  be  a  single  person  of 
this  description  on  our  soil.  We  have  had  the 
institution,  and  I  am  not  disposed  to  arraign  or 
assail  either  the  representatives  or  the  people 
of  other  States  who  have  not  been  so  fortunate 
as  we  have  been  in  getting  rid  of  it.  Sir,  it 
was  hoped  and  confidently  expected,  at  the 
time  we  passed  our  law,  that  the  other  States 
of  this  Union  would  also  enact  laws,  as  many 
of  them  did,  by  which  this  institution  and  this 
system  would  be  gradually  abolished  and^ne 
away  with  ;  and  I  believe,  had  it  not  be^H  in 
part,  for  the  unwarrantable  interference  ofJper- 
sons  in  sections  where  they  had  no  right  to  in¬ 
terfere,  but  mainly  owing  to  the  increased  value 
of  cotton,  and  the  consequent  rise  in  the  price 
of  negroes,  many  a  man  who  is  now  held  in 
bonds  would  have  been  walking  boldly  forth, 
by  the  consent  of  his  master,  on  the  high  road 
to  freedom. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  other  and  con¬ 
temporaneous  evidence,  that  this  kind  of  servi¬ 
tude  was  then  regarded  as  an  evil,  and  not  to 
be  extended. 

Sir,  at  the  time  of  the  framing  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  all  the  territory  conceded  to  belong  to 
the  United  States  was  free — I  believe  every 
foot  of  it. 

In  1787,  the  very  year  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  on  the  13th  of  July,  Congress  passed 
the  famous  ordinance,  by  which  all  the  terri¬ 
tory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  was  dedicated  to 
freedom  forever ;  out  of  which  have  arisen  a  ■ 


family  of  States,  which,  for  progress,  wealth, 
and  civilization,  are  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  the  worlcl!  Young  giants,  before  whose 
majestic  step  the  wilderness  has  fled  away,  like 
the  shadows  of  night  before  the  rushing,  rising 
morn.  I  am  aware,  sir,  that  there  were  other 
vacant  unpatented  lands,  within  the  chartered 
limits  of  several  of  the  Southern  States,  lying 
south  of  the  Ohio  ;  but  these  had  not  been  as 
yet  ceded  to  the  Government  of  the  Union,  and 
were  claimed  by  the  States  within  whose  bor¬ 
ders  they  were. 

This  territory  had  been  ceded  to  the  United 
States  by  Virginia,  herself  a  slave  State,  with 
this  understanding  by  her  statesmen,  who,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  testimony  of  General  Washing¬ 
ton,  were  opposed  to  the  spread  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  Mr.  Jefferson  himself  had 
drawn  the  first  plan  of  an  ordinance  for  this 
purpose,  and  both  Northern  and  Southern  men 
approved  of  it. 

Sir,  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  tone,  the 
temper,  and  spirit  of  the  times.  It  was  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  although  that  sacred  instru¬ 
ment  has  recently  been  called  a  mere  string  of 
11  glittering  generalities.”  It  was  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  on  which  the  struggle  for 
freedom,  during  a  seven  years’  war,  had  been 
conducted.  It  was  in  accordance  with  the  pub¬ 
lic  sentiment  and  feeling  at  the  time,  and  every¬ 
where. 

I  have  said  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  tone, 
the  temper,  and  spirit  of  the  times.  The  Consti¬ 
tution  was  framed  in  the  very  face  of  this  ordi¬ 
nance.  It  was  passed  on  the  13th  of  July,  1787, 
by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  sitting  in 
New  York.  The  Convention  to  frame  the  Con¬ 
stitution  was  sitting  in  Philadelphia  at  that  very 
time.  Many  of  the  leading  members  of  that 
Congress  were  also  members  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion.  Did  the  passage  of  this  ordinance  create 
any  such  excitement  as  we  witness  nowadays  ? 
Did  the  Convention  disband,  or  break  up  in  a 
row  ?  Were  there  any  thunder  tones  then  ut¬ 
tered,  such  as  we  now  hear  in  the  distance,  or 
even  muttering  over  our  heads  ?  Was  the  feeble 
ligament  of  the  Confederation,  which  already 
held  the  thirteen  original  States,  like  so  many 
stars  fixed  in  their  places,  broken  and  de¬ 
stroyed  ;  and  were  they  sent  glaring  forth, 
like  comets,  rushing  madly  and  wildly  ?  Nol 
nothing  of  the  sort.  The  Convention  sat 
on.  It  finished  its  labors  on  the  17th  of  Sep¬ 
tember  following.  The  next  year,  the  work  was 
submitted  to  the  people  of  the  several  States 
for  ratification  and  adoption,  and  the  following 
year  the  new  Government  swung  into  its  orbit  j 
and  one  of  the  very  first  acts  of  the  new  Con¬ 
gress,  under  the  Constitution,  was  to  reaffirm 
this  ordinance  of  1787,  by  altering  its  provis¬ 
ions,  so  as  to  make  ii  conform  to  the  new  order 
of  affairs. 

But  it  has  been  said,  and  I  believe  has  been 
repeated  here  to-day,  that  the  doctrines  held  by 


5 


the  Republicans  are  different  from  those  held 
by  our  fathers  ;  that  they  are  sectional.  Why, 
sir,  they  were  not  sectional  in  1787.  They  were 
then  avowed  both  North  and  South.  It  is  said 
that  they  are  modern.  Sir,  they  are  older  than 
the  sacred  charter  of  our  liberties  itself.  The 
same  doctrine  that  we  contend  for  this  day  is 
the  doctrine  that  Jefferson  and  his  compeers 
contended  for,  which  they  have  placed  upon 
record  in  the  ordinance  of  1787 ;  and  from  that 
day  to  this,  the  State  from  which  I  come  has 
held  this  doctrine.  It  is  the  same  which  was 
promulgated  by  the  great  Commoner,  Henry 
Clay,  when  he  declared  that  no  power  on  earth 
could  induce  him  to  plant  slavery  in  any  Ter¬ 
ritory  which  then  was  free. 

Sir,  it  was  not  until  after  this,  not  until  new 
Territories  came  to  be  acquired,  that  a  change 
came  over  the  spirit  of  our  dream.  But  the 
North  has  never  changed.  It  holds  the  same 
position  now  that  it  held  then  ;  such  as  I  trust 
it  ever  will  maintain. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  I  beg  leave  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  certain 
resolutions,  passed  in  the  State  of  New  Jer¬ 
sey  in  1849  —  some  seven  years  before  the 
new  Republican  party,  as  such,  sprang,  fully 
equipped  and  fully  armed,  into  the  held  — 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  this  doctrine 
was  then  enunciated.  And  I  will  say  in  ad¬ 
vance,  that  these  joint  resolutions  were  passed 
by  a  Whig  Legislature,  several  Democrats 
voting  for  them  ;  and  they  were  approved  by  a 
Democratic  Governor,  who  now  occupies  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  position  upon  the  bench  of  our 
Supreme  Court.  The  resolutions  which  passed 
our  State  in  1849  are  as  follows : 

“  Resolutions  against  the  extension  of  slavery  into  free  lerri- 

tory ,  and  the  traffic  in  slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

“  Whereas  this  Legislature,  representing  the  views  and 
opinions  of  the  people  of  New  Jersey,  believing  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  human  slavery  to  be  a  great  moral  and  political  evil, 
and,  if  unrestrained  by  the  General  Government,  is  calcu¬ 
lated  to  sap  the  foundation  of  our  social  and  political  institu¬ 
tions  :  Therefore, 

“  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  General  Assembly  of  the  State 
of  New  Jersey,  That  while  we  would  refrain  from  all  manner 
of  interference  in  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States 
where  it  constitutionally  exists,  yet  we  would  peaceably 
but  firmly  resist,  by  all  constitutional  means,  its  further  ex¬ 
tension  . 

“  2.  Resolved,  That  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  re¬ 
spectfully  requested  to  use  their  most  strenuous  efforts  to 
secure,  in  any  law  that  may  be  passed  for  the  establishment 
of  State  or  Territorial  Governments,  within  the  bounds  of 
our  newly  acquired  Territory  of  New  Mexico  and  California, 
a  fundamental  conditioner  provision,  that  slavery,  or  in¬ 
voluntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime,  shall 
be  forever  excluded  from  the  said  Territory. 

“  3.  Resolved,  That  the  existence  of  the  traffic  in  slaves  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  is  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of 
our  national  institutions,  and  a  reproach  to  us  as  a  people, 
and  ought,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  to  be  speedily 
abolished  ;  and  that  our  Senators  and  representatives  be 
requested  to  use  their  influence  in  favor  of  this  desirable  ob¬ 
ject, 

“  4.  Resolved,  That  his  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this 
State  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  respectfully  requested  to  transmit 
certified  copies  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  each  of  our 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  from  this  State,  with  a  request  that  they  be  laid  be¬ 
fore  the  bodies  to  which  they  respectively  belong. 

“  Approved  March  2, 1849.” 

This  occurred  the  year  before  the  act  of  Con¬ 


gress  was  passed  abolishing  the  traffic  in  slaves 
in  the  District  of  Columbia — a  year  before  the 
institution  of  those  measures  usually  denomi¬ 
nated  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 

Before  resuming  my  seat,  I  wish  to  say  a  few 
words  on  the  subject  of  the  fugitive  slave  law. 
That  subject  is  embraced  within  the  scope  of 
the  resolutions  which  have  been  submitted  by 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Mississippi,  [Mr. 
Davis.]  In  New  Jersey,  we  have  always  re¬ 
garded  the  act  of  Congress  passed  in  1793,  re¬ 
specting  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  as  ob¬ 
ligatory  upon  us.  No  grave  doubt  about  its 
constitutionality  has  ever  been  raised  or  agitated 
there.  I  recollect  that  many  years  ago,  a  quar¬ 
ter  of  a  century  at  least,  a  case  occurred  which 
was  referred  to  some  two  weeks  since  by  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Wade,]  in 
a  speech  made  by  him.  He  referred  to  a  case 
that  had  been  decided  by  Chief  Justice  Horn- 
blower,  of  our  State ;  and  I  understood  him  to 
say  that  his  recollection  of  that  case  was,  that 
Chief  J ustice  Hornblower  had  held  this  act  to 
be  unconstitutional.  The  case  occurred  before 
the  chief  justice  at  chambers,  on  habeas  corpus. 
There  has  been  no  report  of  it.  It  occurred 
about  the  time  I  came  to  the  bar  5  and  my  rec¬ 
ollection  is,  that  the  chief  justice  decided  the 
cause  and  set  the  fugitive  at  liberty,  on  the 
ground  of  defective  evidence  in  support  of  the 
claim  ;  but,  in  giving  his  opinion,  he  may 
have  thrown  out  some  ideas  of  his  own  with 
respect  to  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  act ; 

Jbut  I  cannot  say  now  how  that  was. 

Aside  from  that,  however,  there  has  never,  so 
far  as  I  know,  been  any  question  raised  in  our 
State  with  respect  to  the  constitutionality  of 
that  law.  We  have  always  acknowledged  the 
binding  force  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  which  declares  that  u  no  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the'laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be 
discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall 
be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.”  Why  ?  For 
the  reason  that  it  was  one  of  the  terms  of  the 
compact  or  agreement  on  which  the  Union  was 
framed.  This  was  the  understanding  at  the 
time  ;  and  this  is  what  its  framers  meant  and 
intended,  let  its  language  be  what  it  may.  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  not  a 
mere  contract  entered  into  between  two  sharp 
dealers,  so  framed  and  contrived  as  that  one 
party  might  get  the  advantage  of  the  other 
upon  a  technical  construction  ;  but  it  was  a 
broad,  fundamental  frame  of  Government,  en¬ 
tered  into  by  high-toned,  patriotic  men,  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  a  Government  for  themselves 
and  their  posterity ;  and  it  is  to  be  construed 
and  interpreted  according  to  the  way  and  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  meant  and  intended 
that  it  should  be  done. 

I  believe  that  the  States,  as  such,  are  not 
bound  to  furnish  the  means  of  enforcing  this 


6 


provision  of  the  Constitution  by  the  agency  of 
their  own  officers  and  tribunals;  but  they  are 
as  clearly  bound  to  surrender  up  fugitives  from 
labor,  when  so  adjudged,  as  they  are  prohibited 
by  this  provision  from  discharging  them  from 
labor  due  in  the  State  from  which  they  may 
have  escaped;  and  I  think  it  also  clear  that  the 
people  of  the  several  States,  upon  whom  the 
Federal  Government,  within  the  scope  of  its 
authority,  acts  individually  and  directly,  are 
bound  to  assist  in  the  enforcement  of  its  author¬ 
ity,  whenever  called  upon  in  due  form  of  law. 
For  instance,  if  a  marshal  should  be  resisted  in 
making  an  arrest,  and  in  the  proper  execution 
of  this  law  should  call  on  a  citizen,  a  bystander, 
for  aid,  it  would  become  his  duty,  however  dis¬ 
agreeable  or  unpleasant  it  might  be,  as  one  of 
the  posse  comitatus,  to  assist  in  the  enforcement 
of  it. 

Slavery,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  existed  in  most  of  the  States  of 
this  Union — nearly  all.  No  such  provision  as 
the  one  referred  to  existed  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  and  it  was  felt  to  be  a  grievous 
inconvenience  by  the  slaveholding  States.  In 
several  of  the  States,  no  aid  whatever  was  al¬ 
lowed  to  the  owners,  and  sometimes  open  resist¬ 
ance  was  made  to  the  recovery  of  such  fugitives. 
This  provision,  then,  had  a  meaning,  and  was 
intended  to  meet  the  difficulty,  and  put  an  end 
to  the  complaint.  The  South  insisted  on  it; 
the  Eastern  and  Middle  States  agreed  to  it ; 
and  in  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part 
to  represent,  we  have  acknowledged  its  obliga¬ 
tion  and  force.  The  concession  was  made,  and 
we  will  abide  by  and  adhere  to  it.  Let  our 
Southern  brethren  not  forget  that  it  was  made 
with  some  sacrifice  of  feeling,  and  for  their 
benefit  and  advantage. 

Under  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  act  of  Congress  of  1793,  fugitives  from  la¬ 
bor  have  been  surrendered  up  in  our  State  to 
the  party  to  whom  their  labor  was  due.  We 
have  always  “  kept  the  bond.”  It  was  a  cov¬ 
enant,  with  many  others,  made  understanding- 
ly,  made  on  a  compromise,  made  to  form  a  more 
perfect  union,  and  to  escape  from  the  debility, 
antagonism,  and  ruin,  of  the  wretched  and  feeble 
Government  of  the  Confederation,  under  which 
all  the  trials  and  all  the  glories  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  were  in  danger  of  being  lost  forever. 

But  we  hold,  with  others,  that  if  a  doubt 
about  the  constitutionality  of  this  act  of  Con¬ 
gress  could  be  raised,  it  is  now  too  late  to  raise 
it ;  it  has  been  settled  by  repeated  decisions  of 
the  courts  and  the  practice  of  the  Government 
for  many  years,  and  so  it  must  and  ought  to 
stand.  But,  sir,  this  is  not  all ;  I  wish  to  say 
something  on  the  subject  of  the  action  of  the 
State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  repre¬ 
sent.  In  1836,  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey, 
under  its  power  to  pass  regulations  of  police, 
passed  an  act  concerning  fugitive  slaves.  It 
was  re-enacted  in  the  revision  of  1846.  This 
act  is  now  in  force.  I  have  it  before  me,  and 


I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  a  few  of  its  most  import¬ 
ant  sections,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what 
the  nature  of  this  statute  is. 

The  first  section  authorizes  the  arrest  of  the 
fugitive  on  a  warrant  to  be  issued  by  a  judge 
of  the  common  pleas  or  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
on  application  of  a  claimant,  his  agent,  or  at¬ 
torney,  accompanied  by  an  affidavit  that  the 
fugitive  has  escaped  from  service,  and  stating 
the  claimant’s  title  to  the  service  of  such  fugi¬ 
tive. 

By  another  section,  it  is  required  that  the 
sheriff  or  constable  receiving  and  executing 
such  warrant  shall,  without  unnecessary  delay, 
carry  the  person  arrested  before  the  judge,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  exigency  of  the  warrant ;  and  it 
is  further  enacted,  that  any  sheriff  or  constable 
who  shall  refuse  or  wilfully  neglect  so  to  do, 
shall  be  liable  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  $500,  or 
imprisonment  for  a  term  not  exceeding  six 
months. 

By  another  section,  it  is  provided  that  the 
hearing  of  the  case  shall  be  before  the  judge 
issuing  the  warrant,  and  two  other  judges 
called  by  him  to  his  assistance,  unless  either 
party  shall  demand  a  trial  by  jury,  when  a 
venire  is  to  be  issued  by  the  judge,  directed  to 
the  sheriff  of  the  county,  to  summon  a  jury  of 
twelve  men,  who  shall  pass  upon  the  claim. 

By  another  section,  it  is  provided  that  if  the 
judge  shall  authorize  the  removal  of  a  fugitive 
without  the  title  of  the  claimant  being  first  de¬ 
cided  upon  in  his  favor,  he  shall  be  subject 
to  a  fine  not  exceeding  $500,  or  imprisonment 
-not  exceeding  two  years;  and  any  judge  re¬ 
fusing  to  perform  any  of  the  duties  required  by 
the  act  shall  be  liable  to  pay  a  sum  not  exceed¬ 
ing  $500.  And  the  act  creates  other  fines  and 
penalties  for  arresting  a  person  as  such  fugitive 
without  a  warrant  or  other  legal  authority  for 
the  purpose,  under  some  act  of  the  Legislature, 
or  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  familiar  with  several  cases  that  have  oc¬ 
curred  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  where  slaves 
have  been  delivered  up  under  the  act  of  the  Leg¬ 
islature  of  our  own  State,  upon  proceedings  had 
before  county  judges.  The  last  case  that  I  recol¬ 
lect  to  have  occurred  was  the  case  of  three  fugi¬ 
tives  claimed  by  Mr.  John  Roth,  I  think  of 
Cecil  county,  Maryland.  Mr.  Roth  applied  to 
the  tribunal  furnished  by  our  State  laws — not 
to  the  tribunal  furnished  by  the  act  of  Congress. 
The  case  was  tried  before  a  jury,  a  majority 
of  whom  were  composed  of  men  acting  with  the 
same  political  party  to  which  I  at  that  time  be¬ 
longed,  and  which  I  believe  I  hold  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  at  this  time — the  old  Whig  party.  The 
jury  rendered  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  claimant, 
and  Mr.  Roth  took  his  fugitives  out  of  the  State 
without  difficulty,  and  without  interruption. 
Nay, more:  the  Representative  from  the  second 
Congressional  district  of  my  State,  now  in  Con¬ 
gress,  [Hon.  John  L.  N.  Stratton,]  was  the 
attorney  of  the  claimant  on  that  occasion,  and 
prosecuted  the  case  with  promptness,  fairness, 


7 


"V 


and  fidelity.  During  the  late  canvass  which 
took  place,  and  resulted  in  his  election,  it  was 
made  a  point  against  him  by  his  political  oppo¬ 
nents,  that  he  had  been  engaged  in  a  trial  that 
“  had  sent  three  fellow-beings  back  to  the  land 
of  bondage.”  And  what  was  the  result?  Why, 
that  in  the  county  of  Burlington,  where  he  lives, 
he  received  a  majority  of  near  eighteen  hundred 
votes  over  his  competitor — nearly  eight  hundred 
majority  more  than  any  other  man  since  my 
recollection  has  ever  before  received  in  that 
county,  in  either  a  national,  State,  or  county 
election.  Sir,  the  people  of  his  district,  although 
they  are  not  in  favor  of  this  institution,  are  still 
in  favor  of  executing  the  laws,  and  will  main¬ 
tain  and  support  them.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say 
that  my  friend  in  the  other  branch  of  Congress 
had  his  majority  increased  in  consequence  of 
the  part  he  took  in  the  prosecution  of  that 
claim ;  but  I  do  mean  to  assert  that  in  his  dis¬ 
trict  it  did  not  cost  him  a  single  vote;  and  yet 
there  is  not  a  man  in  that  district,  who,  so  far 
as  he  himself  is  personally  concerned,  would 
have  any  part  or  lot  in  the  holding  of  a  man  as 
a  chattel,  or  as  property  in  any  way. 

Before  taking  my  seat,  I  will,  in  this  con¬ 
nection,  refer  to  another  statute  of  our  State. 
It  is  to  be  found  in  Nixon's  Digest ,  and  is  as 
follows  : 

“  It  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person,  not  an  inhabitant  of 
this  State,  who  shall  be  travelling  to  or  from  or  passing 
through  this  State,  or  coming  into  this  State  from  any  other 
of  the  United  States,  and  having  a  temporary  residence  in 
this  State,  to  bring  with  him  or  her  any  slave  or  servant, 
and  on  removal, or  leaving  this  State,  to  take  such  slave  or 
servant  out  of  this  State  :  Provided,  That  the  number  of 


such  slaves  or  servants  shall  not  exceed  the  usual  number 
of  personal  or  household  slaves  or  servants  kept  and  main¬ 
tained  by  said  traveller  or  temporary  resident.” 

Now,  I  refer  to  these  matters  and  statutes,  in 
the  hearing  of  Senators  from  the  different  States 
of  this  Union,  to  show  that  we  have  kept  our 
part  of  the  covenant,  and  to  ask  them  to  keep 
theirs — not  to  violate  it ;  not  to  extend  or  at¬ 
tempt  to  extend  it  to  matters  and  things  and 
places  where  it  does  not  belong,  and  was  not 
‘meant  to  apply. 

Sir,  the  people  of  that  State,  as  well  as  the 
people  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States  gen¬ 
erally,  are  opposed  to  all  extravagance  and  all 
ultraism.  They  are  opposed  to  all  extremes. 
They  will  stand  as  a  rock  to  beat  back  and  re¬ 
pel  every  wave  of  fanaticism,  whether  it  comes 
surging  down  in  power  from  the  North,  or 
lashing  up  in  fury  from  the  South.  But,  sir, 
they  would  prefer,  far  prefer,  standing  as  friends 
upon  the  fields  of  Monmouth,  Trenton,  German¬ 
town,  and  Brandywine,  and  reaching  forth 
their  arms  to  their  brethren  of  Bunker  Hill, 
Saratoga,  and  Concord,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
to  their  brethren  of  Yorktown,  Guilford  Court¬ 
house,  and  King’s  Mountain,  on  the  other;  beg 
them  to  cease  their  threatening  menaces  ;  beg 
them  to  cease  their  crimination  and  recrimina¬ 
tion  ;  beg  them  to  cease  tbeir  unholy  fraternal 
strife;  beg  them  to  stand  by  the  compromises 
of  the  Constitution  ;  beg  them  to  join  their 
hands  once  more  in  a  long,  lasting,  and  frater¬ 
nal  clasp  ;  beg  them  to  do  this  for  the  Union — 
for  the  sake  of  that  Union  upon  which  our 
truest,  noblest  destiny  on  earth  depends. 


% 


(b 


4 


PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860. 


REPUBLICAN  EXECUTIVE  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE. 


HON.  PRESTON  KING,  N.  Y.,  Chairman. 

“  J.  W.  GRIMES,  IOWA. 

“  L.  F.  S.  FOSTER,  CONN. 

On  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

“  E.  B.  WASHBURNE,  ILLINOIS. 

During  the  Presidential  Campaign,  Speeches 
ing  reduced  prices : 


HON.  JOHN  COVODE,  PENN.,  Treasurer . 

“  E.  G.  SPAULDING,  N.  Y. 

“  J.  B.  ALLEY,  MASS. 

“  DAVID  KILGORE,  INDIANA. 

“  J.  L.  N.  STRATTON,  N.  J. 

On  the  part  of  the  House  of  Reps. 

and  Documents  will  be  supplied  at  the  follow- 


Eight  pages,  per  hundred . $0.50 

Sixteen  u  “  1.00 

Twenty-four  u  1.50 


Address  either  of  the  above  Committee. 


GEORGE  HARRINGTON,  Secretary » 


